• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holding the bulk of federal gov't operations "hostage" over single issues?

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Today it's Trump's wall, tomorrow it may be something else. Though anarchists will disagree, regardless of what be the issue, the notion that the Congress or President would, in essence, throw a temper tantrum leaving the federal government unfunded strikes me as a dereliction of duty. There is no reason to not pass two-year-long appropriations bills for the whole of government. It's irresponsible for people whose job it is to pass and sign appropriations to wait until or beyond the time at which gov't runs out of funding authorization.

Think about it. If a major portion of your job (assuming you're a professional) were to do XYZ, and you flat-out failed to complete your deliverables in a timely enough matter such that you don't "jam up" the operations of other workers in your organization, would you face consequences for your below-expectations performance? Odds are you would, and depending on your firm/client, those consequences may well be devastating -- financially, to your reputation, to your career, and more -- in both the near and short term. Yet that's not the case for the folks whom we hire to legislate. To wit, what member of Congress "got fired" for not performing one of his/her Constitutionally required tasks? I suspect none.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,297
Reaction score
29,704
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Today it's Trump's wall, tomorrow it may be something else. Though anarchists will disagree, regardless of what be the issue, the notion that the Congress or President would, in essence, throw a temper tantrum leaving the federal government unfunded strikes me as a dereliction of duty. There is no reason to not pass two-year-long appropriations bills for the whole of government. It's irresponsible for people whose job it is to pass and sign appropriations to wait until or beyond the time at which gov't runs out of funding authorization.

Think about it. If a major portion of your job (assuming you're a professional) were to do XYZ, and you flat-out failed to complete your deliverables in a timely enough matter such that you don't "jam up" the operations of other workers in your organization, would you face consequences for your below-expectations performance? Odds are you would, and depending on your firm/client, those consequences may well be devastating -- financially, to your reputation, to your career, and more -- in both the near and short term. Yet that's not the case for the folks whom we hire to legislate. To wit, what member of Congress "got fired" for not performing one of his/her Constitutionally required tasks? I suspect none.

The people don't care.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Today it's Trump's wall, tomorrow it may be something else. Though anarchists will disagree, regardless of what be the issue, the notion that the Congress or President would, in essence, throw a temper tantrum leaving the federal government unfunded strikes me as a dereliction of duty. There is no reason to not pass two-year-long appropriations bills for the whole of government. It's irresponsible for people whose job it is to pass and sign appropriations to wait until or beyond the time at which gov't runs out of funding authorization.

Think about it. If a major portion of your job (assuming you're a professional) were to do XYZ, and you flat-out failed to complete your deliverables in a timely enough matter such that you don't "jam up" the operations of other workers in your organization, would you face consequences for your below-expectations performance? Odds are you would, and depending on your firm/client, those consequences may well be devastating -- financially, to your reputation, to your career, and more -- in both the near and short term. Yet that's not the case for the folks whom we hire to legislate. To wit, what member of Congress "got fired" for not performing one of his/her Constitutionally required tasks? I suspect none.

With the issue is the dismissal and disrespect of the President of the United States sure, sign me up.
 

dobieg

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2017
Messages
4,930
Reaction score
2,174
Location
In yo' grill
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Today it's Trump's wall, tomorrow it may be something else. Though anarchists will disagree, regardless of what be the issue, the notion that the Congress or President would, in essence, throw a temper tantrum leaving the federal government unfunded strikes me as a dereliction of duty. There is no reason to not pass two-year-long appropriations bills for the whole of government. It's irresponsible for people whose job it is to pass and sign appropriations to wait until or beyond the time at which gov't runs out of funding authorization.

Think about it. If a major portion of your job (assuming you're a professional) were to do XYZ, and you flat-out failed to complete your deliverables in a timely enough matter such that you don't "jam up" the operations of other workers in your organization, would you face consequences for your below-expectations performance? Odds are you would, and depending on your firm/client, those consequences may well be devastating -- financially, to your reputation, to your career, and more -- in both the near and short term. Yet that's not the case for the folks whom we hire to legislate. To wit, what member of Congress "got fired" for not performing one of his/her Constitutionally required tasks? I suspect none.



So why is your side holding up a deal over a minuscule $3.4 Billion for border security?
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
23,616
Reaction score
11,031
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sequestration.
 

Common Sense 1

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
12,878
Reaction score
7,162
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Simple pass the border security protection funds now. It's not a lot of
money for the federal government. Just 5 billion. The federal government
has a moral duty to protect our nation. There is nothing more important than that.

President Trump is doing exactly what he ran on. Better border security.
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
37,435
Reaction score
23,957
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Simple pass the border security protection funds now. It's not a lot of
money for the federal government. Just 5 billion. The federal government
has a moral duty to protect our nation. There is nothing more important than that.

President Trump is doing exactly what he ran on. Better border security.

Where does the 5 billion number come from? Last thing was the wall was going to cost 20 billion or more.......even TrumpTV has larger numbers.

Trump's border wall -- how much it will actually cost according to a statistician

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tru...ill-actually-cost-according-to-a-statistician

From the link: ”The Trump administration wants to enforce border security with a combination of a physical wall and natural barriers that would protect the estimated 1,933 miles-long border between the United States and Mexico. Many different cost estimates have been thrown around, from as little as $8 billion to as much as $70 billion, with anywhere from $150 million per year to $750 million per year in maintenance.
 

Common Sense 1

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
12,878
Reaction score
7,162
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Where does the 5 billion number come from? Last thing was the wall was going to cost 20 billion or more.......even TrumpTV has larger numbers.

Trump's border wall -- how much it will actually cost according to a statistician

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tru...ill-actually-cost-according-to-a-statistician

From the link: ”The Trump administration wants to enforce border security with a combination of a physical wall and natural barriers that would protect the estimated 1,933 miles-long border between the United States and Mexico. Many different cost estimates have been thrown around, from as little as $8 billion to as much as $70 billion, with anywhere from $150 million per year to $750 million per year in maintenance.

5 billion is the first installment. Just a starting place. :peace
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So why is your side holding up a deal over a minuscule $3.4 Billion for border security?

  • I don't have a side. I have a stance on the matter I discussed in my OP. Some folks who have a side may or may not agree with me.
  • The only person on any side holding up the the deal is Donald Trump and he noted that he's proud to be the one doing so.

    See 1:07 and following in the video below:

 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
  • Do you people not realize this thread isn't about the goddamned currently looming governmental shutdown?
  • Did you read the OP?

Today it's Trump's wall, tomorrow it may be something else. Though anarchists will disagree, regardless of what be the issue, the notion that the Congress or President would, in essence, throw a temper tantrum leaving the federal government unfunded strikes me as a dereliction of duty.
-- Excerpt from this thread's OP...the first sentence in it, as a matter of fact
 

dobieg

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2017
Messages
4,930
Reaction score
2,174
Location
In yo' grill
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
  • I don't have a side. I have a stance on the matter I discussed in my OP. Some folks who have a side may or may not agree with me.
  • The only person on any side holding up the the deal is Donald Trump and he noted that he's proud to be the one doing so.

    See 1:07 and following in the video below:



Ah yes. Just another even headed independent who just happens to hate everything about Trump and damn near wets themselves over anything liberals do.
 
Top Bottom